"Rambo"

No one can say that Sylvester Stallone doesn't have staying power. The 61-year-old actor/writer/director has cranked out two high-powered testosterone thrill rides within the past year, both revisiting the characters that made him a household name more than 25 years ago.

His most recent, "Rambo," finds our favorite anti-hero living in Thailand, a broken, conflicted, and miserable shell of a man hiding from his past. After transporting a group of American missionaries into the devastated Burma, John Rambo is again entered into a war zone scenario facing insurmountable odds and the horrors of his past.

Stallone's script is full of good intentions, attempting to add depth and humanity to the characters and situation. The clunky dialogue and wooden acting is the blight of his intent, unfortunately making some scenes more laughable than thought provoking. Just as in the two previous Rambo sequels, there is no shortage of blood and gore in the frenzied and hyper-realistic battle scenes choked with mangled limbs and exploding heads.

Stallone was sure to shuffle in brutal scenes of women and children getting savagely killed just to remind us that the film is grounded in the reality of Burma/Myanmar's 60-year civil war.

"Rambo" brings up interesting issues on the true nature of humanity; are we killers or saviors? While offering no concrete answers, there are arguments for both. The film's most revealing scene features the pacifist, who believes killing for any reason is unequivocally wrong, actually killing a man. He is then appalled with the literal and figurative blood on his hands, not because he just killed a human being, but because he was capable of doing so.

"Rambo" is really nothing more than a fun shoot 'em up movie that will not disappoint the fans and those who have been heralding Sly's role reprisal. Even though it attempts to secure a seat in the upper echelon of thoughtful action films, the lack of exposition for the themes it introduces ensures its place as pure entertainment.